Tenancy Tribunal rules landlord’s water rate claim against former tenant unfair

The landlord sought $646.36 in backdated water bills 18 months after the tenant moved out.

A landlord’s application to claw back water charges from a tenant 18 months after they moved out has been dismissed by the Tenancy Tribunal as untimely and unfair.

The bills related to a tenancy between April 22, 2022 and January 17, 2024, which the tribunal was told had been trouble-free and had ended on good terms.

The tenant had not received water invoices during the tenancy. Those submitted at the hearing were the first he had seen and were addressed to the owner at the apartment, which is part of a body corporate.

The property management agency, which was acting for an overseas owner, initially sought an order for $825.15 for water rates but reduced the claim to $646.36 at the tribunal hearing.

The landlord argued the tenant should have left contact details on vacating the apartment, although there was no evidence presented to the tribunal of any relevant requirement or agreement.

The tenant maintained he shouldn’t be accountable for the water rates bills that were neither presented during the tenancy or raised until long after it ended.

Tribunal adjudicator Michael Brennan acknowledged tenants were responsible for water usage under the Residential Tenancies Act but stressed landlords were obliged to provide invoices promptly and to clearly identify how much water was used.

“It is plainly incumbent on a landlord to set out with clarity what it is that he claims is due, as and when it falls due, and, when it comes to water, to provide the bills to the tenant as they fall due, so that the tenant may make any challenge to the supplier that he thinks is appropriate and make arrangements for payment in a timely fashion,” Brennan said, referring to a relevant district court case.

Asking tenants to pay after the event with no opportunity to check the calculation, or to make provision for payment at the time, puts them at a “manifest disadvantage”, he said.

It was the landlord’s obligation to supply the water rates accounts to the tenant and that obligation couldn’t be deflected by saying that the tenant was aware of their responsibility to pay such outgoings and/or did not raise the issue, Brennan said.

He also noted the claim included fixed charges, which remain the owner’s responsibility regardless of occupancy. Combined with the lengthy delay, this made the demand unreasonable, he said.

The lack of water bills was not due to any fault of the tenant, Brennan said.

“The invoices clearly record over time an increasing amount of water costs due to unpaid bills. It was open to the landlords to respond to this.”

While there would have been water consumption during the tenancy, the landlord’s failure to issue invoices and the lengthy delay had created an inequitable situation, the adjudicator said.

“This was, by all other accounts, a good tenancy. It ended, the tenant received his bond and everyone had moved on,” Brennan said.

Approached for further comment, the agent claimed the Body Corporate failed to send any water bills to the tenant or to notify either the tenant or it, as the landlord’s representative, regarding the water charges.

“This is highly unusual, as it is standard practice for a water supplier to issue reminders, refer unpaid accounts to debt collection or contact the Body Corporate to clarify the reason for non-payment if bills remain outstanding for more than three months,” an agency representative said.

The agency was disputing the matter with the Body Corporate and planned to seek reimbursement from it through the Disputes Tribunal, the representative said.

Sarah Curtis is a news reporter for the Northern Advocate, focusing on a wide range of issues. She has nearly 20 years’ experience in journalism, most of which she spent court reporting in Gisborne and on the East Coast.